I tend to believe that it's the cyclist responsibility to ensure you're as out of the way as you can be for your own safety, whether there is paint on the tarmac or not. This is two prong, both to ensure cars can slip by you safely & to also not aggravate the motorists by holding them back, thus even more gravely endangering your safety. I don't understand how people think the existence of a sharrow entitles them to the entire lane or block traffic. You are not given the right of way by any means, as it is not a marked bike lane, a crosswalk, nor a MUP. In nearly any circumstance, a cyclist is not at the top of the right of way food chain anyway.

Sharrows are more of a latent signal to motorists that this is a heavily used bicycling route & to be aware this is a shared road. It's supposed to increase awareness to motorists that cyclists can and will occupy some of the roadspace. The OP was riding down the middle of the lane and probably blocking motorists from coming around when he could just as easily been hugging the curb & allowing most to pass safely. For most of the video there were no parked cars along the right -- completely viable cycling space to allow a few cars to pass.

It doesn't appear they devoted a bike lane there, so sorry to say, I think the officer was correct in this instance & handled the situation politely and professionally. Believe me, I am not generally one to stick up for the 'man' but I think posters on this thread are misinformed. I see this is all over the web now & apparently I'm in the minority, but the fact remains the officer was justified at advising the cyclist to keep right.

http://ladotbikeblog.wordpress.com/2.../sharrows-101/


Stay safe out there y'all!